I think most Dems would prefer no guns whatsoever. The most interesting point here is...

Posted at 2:36 pm on Aug 11, 2019

the one you imply with your question, namely that liberals tend to assume that black people are less able to handle rudimentary, customary responsibilities, like obtaining IDs. The underlying assumption, when you get past the rhetoric, is precisely that: black people won't be able to navigate the procedures necessary to obtain identification.

Did you happen to see any articles on a recent study done about language and political beliefs? The researchers found that while moderates and conservatives generally speak the same to members of minority groups the same way they speak to whites, liberals tend to adjust their language "down" when speaking to them. You've probably experienced this before. I certainly have. Many times. The ones that stand out were examples in college. Occasions in which black students misstated facts, mispronounced words, or made points that were obvious and added nothing to the discussion, which then were left uncorrected or were not constructively criticized . Now, it might be explained that the professor and the other students did not speak up out of fear of being labeled "prejudiced," but I don't think that fully explains it. There is an underlying, paternalistic belief that members of minority groups can't be expected to do the same things as most whites can do. Like using proper terminology or diction. Like find the DMV or figure out a way to get there when they're poor. Unsurprisingly, these ideas seem to be much more prevalent among people in the intelligentsia and higher socioecnomic strata, rather than among working class whites. It turns out that assuming a belief system that you believe is most compassionate towards black people doesn't produce a great affinity with actual black people, nor does it provide you with a better understanding of their lives.

All civilizations decay.,, it isn't actually "progressive" at all..

Posted at 5:46 pm on Aug 11, 2019

"Views" come and go. The Romans allowed infanticide and the Greeks pederasty. Oh! And in the 1940's the highly cultured Germans committed industrial genocide. Unfortunately, one man's gun reform is another's abridgment of freedom. These are your "views" and they are so so fickle.

Thread Level: 4

Let’s see pederasty, infanticide, mass murder, and restrictions on guns. Which doesn’t go with the

Posted at 5:49 pm on Aug 11, 2019

That is a little dramatic. It is more simple than that.

Posted at 8:13 pm on Aug 11, 2019

They are a single issue organization. They have a job to do to protect that issue. Some people don't like it that they do that job well. Others like it that they do that job well.

The are also the 3rd largest membership organization in the United States, behind AAA and AARP. That makes them pretty effective at what they do...which is (i) train people (including LEOs) in firearms use, and (ii) protect the right to defense from aggression of others.

I don't think we have to engage in any Freudian analysis. Their goals are simply stated by them (and referenced in the Constitution, no less), and they pursue those goals tirelessly.

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.

I always thought a combination of the ACLU & NRA would make the perfrect civil rights organization.

Posted at 3:19 pm on Aug 11, 2019

At least the NRA is staying true to the rights it was formed to protect. Various ACLU chapters are starting to abandon free speech rights and freedom of religion rights, among others. They've lost their appetite for defending many "unsavory" (in their opinion) defendants, which is sad.

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.

Thread Level: 6

Dont worry ACLU absolutism is also alive and well. Take Charlottesville.

Posted at 9:58 pm on Aug 11, 2019

The City wanted to move the rally to another park away from the congested downtown. The ACLU convinced a federal judge to issue an injunction. Perhaps the street fighting and car death would have been avoided if the City had been able to have forced the rally elsewhere.

I don't want to embarrass you, Chris, but you are outside your area of expertise on this.

Posted at 4:10 pm on Aug 11, 2019

It was formed in 1871 for marksmanship. Then it moved to rights protection...which is actually now the domain of the NRA-ILA, not the NRA. NRA is about responsible use of rights; NRA-ILA is for the actual protection of rights being abridged by the government.

Interestingly, even if you are right (which you are not), my point still stands. You didn't actually refute me, Chris.

If you guys are going to try to keep blacks from getting firearms by requiring IDs for purchases, you should probably try to inform yourself of your opposition.

This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.

And like the ACLU of old they often take extreme positions. The ACLU constantly fought even

Posted at 9:11 pm on Aug 11, 2019

reasonable time, place and manner speech restrictions. They have taken ridiculous extreme positions on the Establishment clause as well. All absolutists are goofy in my view and the NRA fits that bill pretty well.

Thread Level: 13

The NRA has accepted and supported many reasonable limits. For example, the ban on automatic weapons

Posted at 9:32 pm on Aug 11, 2019

But the former can be used as cover for the latter. "We aren't violating rights, we are just reasonably limiting them."

For the 1st Amendment, the Left uses the former (the reasonable limits) as cover to try to stop traditionally protected speech. Substantive political speech becomes "hate speech" and so can now be stopped as if only a reasonable limit is being applied.

I'm comparing that attempt, that everyone sees happening, to what you are preparing to argue regarding the 2nd Amendment. The similarity is the use of cover of reasonable limits to hide or justify the abrogation of rights.

That is the analogy which you appear to have missed.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court’s primary role is to interpret the US Constitution?

Posted at 11:38 am on Aug 12, 2019

They sometimes interpret statutes in which there is no constitutional question in play. In other words, they are settling a legal dispute interpreting a federal statute raised in a civil or criminal case.

However, they are often interpreting a constitutional question that a state or federal statute implicates.

But, as to Second Amendment, the Court has already made clear that it is not an absolute right, and is subject to limitations. What those boundaries will be, has yet to be tested.

They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God.

Thread Level: 15

That is a more controversial statement than you indicate.

Posted at 11:42 am on Aug 12, 2019

The Constitution does not state that. The Supreme Court stated that, and assumed the responsibility. Most scholars grant it (that they have the power, not that it is their primary duty). But some do not. Also, your point does not refute Baron's point.

Actually, your point is an extension of what the Left is doing with speech, and wants to do with guns. You want to extend "normal limits" (for the amendments) and "interpretation" (for SCOTUS), both of which are generally accepted by both sides, to substantive limits on the Bill of RIghts and activist creation of law through radical "interpretation" which is actually legislation.

You will sit here and say they are just interpreting, or using reasonable limits. But, you are actually trying to legislate and establish substantive limits.

This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.

Conor is curious: Since when has any person's right to choose to act been an unlimited right?

Posted at 3:20 pm on Aug 11, 2019

None of us have the right to choose to kill someone, 521. Don't you agree?

Our rights have always ended where another person's rights begin. You can swing your fist until it starts to approach my face. You can cut with your knife until it starts to cut another human being who hasn't consented to your acts.

This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.

Thread Level: 4

They are subject to regulation though and the mood in the nation is shifting. There will be more of

I agree: The nature of gov't is to limit rights, & the gov't has almost infinite attempts to do so.

Posted at 2:03 pm on Aug 11, 2019

That means that rights will necessarily decrease over time until the government is reset. All we can hope to do is slow the transgressions against human rights by government (thereby lengthening the life of government, ironically). We can never hope to stop the government from violating human rights altogether.

This message has been edited 4 time(s).

Freedom consists of the distribution of power, and despotism in its concentration.